»U.S. warship crossing into Black Sea07/03/14 13:42 from Mike Nova's Shared Newslinksmikenova shared this story . U.S. warship crossing into Black Sea NOW PLAYING Journalist attacked, robbed in Ukraine NOW PLAYING Soldier: We are here like animals in zoo NOW PLAYING CNN crew unable to report outside hotel NOW PLAYING Top...

SimferopolOn Feb. 27, in one of the first maneuvers of the operation, the Parliament building in Crimea’s capital is captured.

RoadsRussian troops seize roads to the mainland, preventing Ukraine from sending troops and allowing Russian forces to move more freely.

KerchRussian forces also arrive by ferry and helicopter across the Kerch Strait. They later take control of the ferry terminal.

BelbekRussian troops take over Ukraine’s main air base in Crimea. This prevents the Ukrainian military from flying in reinforcements and from using its MiG-29 fighter jets to intercept Russian aircraft.

GvardyskoyeRussia flies troops to this airbase already under their control. These are in addition to forces already allowed in Crimea under a previous agreement with Ukraine.

SevastopolRussian naval ships appear to prevent Ukrainian ships from leaving port. Russia leases part of the port to be the home of its Black Sea Fleet.

MOSCOW — The day after he returned from the Winter Olympics, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia gathered the 12 members of his national security council for a crisis meeting to manage a political implosion in Ukraine that, by all accounts, had surprised Russia’s political and military elite and, above all, infuriated Mr. Putin himself.

One prominent member of the council, Valentina I. Matviyenko, chairwoman of the upper house of Parliament, emerged from the meeting declaring that it was impossible that Russia would invade Crimea, yet a couple of days later Russian troops were streaming into the peninsula.

When Mr. Putin made his first public remarks on the crisis on Tuesday, he said that Russia would not support Crimea’s efforts to secede. On Friday, the Kremlin allowed a mass pro-secession rally in Red Square while senior lawmakers loyal to Mr. Putin welcomed a delegation from Crimea and pledged support to make it a new province of the Russian Federation.

An examination of the seismic events that set off the most threatening East-West confrontation since the Cold War era, based on Mr. Putin’s public remarks and interviews with officials, diplomats and analysts here, suggests that the Kremlin’s strategy emerged haphazardly, even misleadingly, over a tense and momentous week, as an emotional Mr. Putin acted out of what the officials described as a deep sense of betrayal and grievance, especially toward the United States and Europe.

Some of those decisions, particularly the one to invade Crimea, then took on a life of their own, analysts said, unleashing a wave of nationalistic fervor for the peninsula’s reunification with Russia that the Kremlin has so far proved unwilling, or perhaps unable, to tamp down.

The decision to invade Crimea, the officials and analysts said, was made not by the national security council but in secret among a smaller and shrinking circle of Mr. Putin’s closest and most trusted aides. The group excluded senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the cadre of comparatively liberal advisers who might have foreseen the economic impact and potential consequences of American and European sanctions.

“It seems the whole logic here is almost entirely the product of one particular mind,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, a Russian analyst and editor of the quarterly journal Russia in Global Affairs.

Some of Russia’s plans were clearly years in the making, including one to sever Crimea from Ukraine through Moscow’s political support for sovereignty and even reunification. Nevertheless, Mr. Putin’s strategy in the last two weeks has appeared ad hoc, influenced by events not always in his control.

“We shouldn’t assume there was a grand plan,” said Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia’s security forces from New York University who is in Moscow and regularly meets with security officials. “They seem to be making things up as they go along.”

Mr. Putin’s decisions since the crisis began reflect instincts, political skills and emotions that have characterized his 14 years as Russia’s paramount leader, including a penchant for secrecy, loyalty and respect, for him and for Russia. They also suggest a deepening frustration with other world leaders that has left him impervious to threats of sanctions or international isolation, such that he shrugged off threats by members of the Group of 8 countries to boycott this year’s summit meeting in Sochi, Russia.

Because of Mr. Putin’s centralized authority, Russia’s policies and actions in moments of crisis can appear confused or hesitant until Mr. Putin himself decides on a course of action. That was the case in the days when violence erupted in Kiev, Ukraine’s capital, prompting a frantic effort by the Europeans to mediate a compromise. Mr. Putin, perhaps preoccupied with the Olympics, did not send a representative to those talks until the agreement was ready to be initialed.

To understand the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia, look to the interconnected history of the two countries.

Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Moscow Carnegie Center, said that Russia’s role in Ukraine’s upheaval was “very passive” up until the moment that the government of President Viktor F. Yanukovych collapsed. This was true, he said, despite the Kremlin’s wariness about any new Ukrainian trade agreement with the European Union and its pledge in December to provide a $15 billion package of assistance to shore up the country’s faltering finances. Jolted by the government’s collapse, Mr. Trenin said, the Kremlin “sprang into action almost immediately.”

He and other officials and analysts said that Mr. Putin’s reaction stemmed from the collapse of the agreement on the night of Feb. 21. Mr. Putin, by his own account at a news conference on Tuesday, warned Mr. Yanukovych not to withdraw the government’s security forces from Kiev, one of the demands of the agreement being negotiated.

“ ‘You will have anarchy,’ ” Mr. Putin said he told him. “ ‘There will be chaos in the capital. Have pity on the people.’ But he did it anyway. And as soon as he did it, his office and that of the government were seized, and the chaos I warned him about erupted, and it continues to this day.”

By then, however, Mr. Yanukovych had already lost the support of his party, whose members joined others in Parliament in ordering the security services off the barricades that they had maintained around government buildings in Kiev. Mr. Yanukovych, fearful because of reports of armed protesters heading to Kiev from western Ukraine, packed up documents from his presidential residence and fled in the early hours of the next morning. That night Mr. Putin was still assuring President Obama in a telephone call that he would work to resolve the crisis.

By the next day, however, Ukraine’s Parliament had stripped Mr. Yanukovych of his powers, voted to release the opposition leader Yulia V. Tymoshenko from prison and scheduled new presidential elections. Russia’s initial response was muted, but officials have since said that Mr. Putin fumed that the Europeans who had mediated the agreement did nothing to enforce it. Mr. Putin and other officials began describing the new leaders as reactionaries and even fascists that Russia could not accept in power.

“It was probably not just thought of today,” Aleksei A. Chesnakov, a political strategist and former Kremlin aide, said of Mr. Putin’s move in Crimea, “but the trigger came when it was clear that the authorities in Ukraine were not able to return to the compromise of the 21st.”

Two days later Mr. Putin attended the closing ceremony of an Olympics that he hoped would be a showcase of Russia’s revival as a modern, powerful nation. He then ordered the swift, furtive seizure of a region that has loomed large in Russia’s history since Catherine the Great’s conquest. The decision to order in Russian forces appears to have occurred late Tuesday or early Wednesday among a smaller circle of Mr. Putin’s advisers.

A visual survey of the ongoing dispute, including satellite images of Russian naval positions and maps showing political, cultural and economic factors in the crisis.

The group, the officials and analysts said, included Sergei B. Ivanov, Mr. Putin’s chief of staff; Nikolai P. Patrushev, the secretary of the security council; and Aleksandr V. Bortnikov, the director of the Federal Security Service. All are veterans of the K.G.B., specifically colleagues of Mr. Putin’s when he served in the organization in Leningrad, now St. Petersburg, during the 1970s and ’80s.

The exclusions of other advisers, the analysts and officials said, underscored his increasing conservatism since he returned to the presidency in 2012 after a stint as prime minister and faced not only popular protests but also mounting criticism from the United States and Europe of the country’s record on political and human rights. “He has bit by bit winnowed out the people who challenged his worldview,” Mr. Galeotti said.

Neither Mr. Putin nor any other official has acknowledged ordering an armed incursion in Crimea, though Mr. Putin in his news conference said that he had bolstered security at the bases of the Black Sea Fleet, which has its headquarters in Sevastopol.

The deployment of the Russian forces — which the Ukrainian government has said ranged from 6,000 to 15,000 troops — remains a covert operation, the officials and analysts said, to sidestep international law and the need for approval by the United Nations Security Council, something that Mr. Putin and others have repeatedly insisted was necessary for any military operations against another country.

“It’s a traditional thing — to deny the obvious,” said Andrei Soldatov, a journalist and the author, with Irina Borogan, of a book on Russia’s intelligence services called “The New Nobility.”

As long ago as 2008, when NATO leaders met in Bucharest to consider whether to invite Ukraine to begin moving toward membership, Mr. Putin bluntly warned that such membership would be unacceptable to Russia, presaging the strategy that appears to be unfolding now.

According to a diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, Mr. Putin even questioned the legality of the Soviet Union’s transfer of the region to the authority of what was then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. “If we add in the NATO question and other problems, the very existence of the state could find itself under threat,” Mr. Putin said, according to the cable, written by Kurt Volker, the American ambassador to NATO at the time.

The question now is how far Mr. Putin intends to go. Sergei A. Markov, a political strategist who advises the Kremlin, said it was not yet clear. “He is improvising,” he explained.

Putin Loses An Ally But Gains A Territory

Vladimir Putin can sit back and enjoy the show in Sochi after a very satisfactory week.

In between the Winter Olympics and Paralympics, he has lost an ally but gained a territory, and he has no plans to give it back no matter how loudly other world leaders protest.

The Russian President is in a strong position and he knows it.

On March 16, there will be a referendum in Crimea which will almost certainly produce an overwhelming vote in favour of a union in Russia.

It will give a semblance of legitimacy to a land grab orchestrated by the Kremlin, but carried out by a military force that the Russians claim they don't control.

The territory, which was gifted to Ukraine in 1954 by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, will be returned to Moscow rule.

Crimea continued to be governed by Moscow until 1991 when the Soviet Union broke apart, and has always retained a strong ethnic Russian identity.

The interim Ukrainian government protests that the referendum is unconstitutional and that any secession has to be approved by the country as a whole.

But Mr Putin points out that the crisis began with an "unconstitutional coup d'etat" which removed the elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, so those in Kiev are hardly playing by the rulebook.

Mr Putin is still giving his former neighbour Mr Yanukovych refuge, but knows that he is a spent political force.

Another lengthy telephone conversation between Mr Putin and President Obama merely demonstrated the gulf between them.

The US may have gone further than the EU in coming up with a package of economic sanctions, but it does not appear to have had any impact on Mr Putin.

On the contrary, he is already trying to move on.

The Kremlin's version of the conversation quoted President Putin stressing the "paramount importance of Russian-US relations for ensuring stability and security in the world".

"These relations should not be sacrificed due to disagreements on individual international issues even if they are very significant," he is also quoted as saying.

In other words, let's agree to differ on Ukraine, with no hard feelings.

The West fears that if it accepts what appears to be a fait accompli in Crimea, it could encourage the Kremlin to encourage a similar breakaway in other Russian-dominated areas of Eastern Ukraine such as Donetsk.

Crimea could prove to be a slippery slope.

As he watches the Winter Paralympic Games in Sochi, Mr Putin can award himself a gold medal for boldness - and for keeping a straight face as he told the world that the military forces in Crimea had nothing to do with him.

U.S. President Barack Obama spoke with German Chancellor Angela Merkel Friday about the crisis in Ukraine.The White House said in a statement the president agreed with European leaders on the need for Russia to pull back its forces, allow for the deployment of international observers and human rights monitors to Crimea, and support free and fair presidential elections in May.The White House statement said Mr. Obama and Chancellor Merkel discussed the need for Russia to "agree quickly" on the formation of a contact group, leading to direct dialogue between Ukraine and Russia "to de-escalate the situation and restore Ukraine's territorial integrity."Meanwhile, in a telephone conversation Friday with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the U.S. against taking any "hasty and reckless steps" that could harm Russian-American relations. Lavrov said the sanctions would hit the U.S. "like a boomerang.:"Earlier Friday, armed men smashed a Russian military truck through the gates of a Ukrainian missile defense post in the Crimean peninsula, but they were not successful in taking control of the base.Outside the base, men who appeared to be local pro-Russian militia members were reported to have roughed up journalists.In Simferopol security footage appeared to show one man, reported to be a photographer, having a gun held to his head while his camera was seized, for having taken photographs of other journalists being beaten and robbed.Also Friday, Ukraine's Interim President Oleksandr Turchynov signed a decree canceling a planned referendum on Crimea joining Russia.A day earlier,Crimea's Moscow-backed legislature voted for the peninsula to become part of Russia and scheduled a referendum on the issue for March 16.Ukraine's interim prime minister says that "no one in the civilized world" will recognize the referendum's results.Arseniy Yatsenyuk says he wants to "warn separatists" and others he describes as "traitors of the Ukrainian state" that their decisions are "unlawful" and "unconstitutional." U.S. and European leaders also called the referendum illegal.Crimean officials fired back Friday, saying the vote will go forward.The speaker of Russia's upper house of parliament said Friday Russian lawmakers will support Crimea's decision if the Ukrainian region decides to join Russia. Tens of thousands of people turned out for a rally in the Russian capital to show solidarity with Crimea's pro-Russian authorities.Ukraine and Russia have been locked in a tense standoff since Russian forces entered the Crimean peninsula a week ago.Also Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said he hoped that Russia and the West do not return to a period of tensions like the Cold War.Russian news agencies quoted Dmitry Peskov as saying that despite "profound disagreements" between the two sides, "the hope remains that as a result of dialogue it will be possible to find some common ground."Still, Peskov dismissed the idea that Western countries could mediate talks between Russia and Ukraine.Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said Friday his government is "prepared to rebuild relations with Russia." But he said Russia must withdraw its troops, fulfill its agreements with Ukraine and stop supporting separatists in Crimea.President Obama spoke by phone Thursday with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the Ukraine crisis, but the two leaders found little common ground.The White House says Mr. Obama told Mr. Putin the presence of Russian forces in Crimea is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. The Kremlin says Mr. Putin denounced Ukraine's new government as "illegitimate" and said Russia cannot ignore calls for help from Ukraine's Russia-leaning east and south.Also Thursday, Mr. Obama authorized sanctions, including visa restrictions, against those found to have violated Ukraine's territorial integrity. The EU also took measures against Russia, suspending talks on visas and a new economic agreement.

KIEV, Ukraine — As tensions rose on the streets of the Russian-speaking eastern portion of Ukraine, the response of the new government in the capital on Sunday was not to send troops, but to send rich people.

The interim government, worried about Russian efforts to destabilize or seize regions in eastern Ukraine after effectively taking control of the Crimean peninsula in the south, is recruiting the country’s wealthy businessmen, known as the oligarchs, to serve as governors of the eastern provinces.

The strategy, which Ukrainian news media are attributing to Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a former prime minister and party leader, is recognition that the oligarchs represent the country’s industrial and business elite, and exercise great influence over thousands of workers in the east, which is largely ethnically Russian.

The office of President Oleksandr V. Turchynov announced on Sunday the appointments of two billionaires — Sergei Taruta in Donetsk and Ihor Kolomoysky in Dnipropetrovsk — and more were reportedly under consideration for positions in the eastern regions.

A visual survey of the ongoing dispute, including satellite images of Russian naval positions and maps showing political, cultural and economic factors in the crisis.

The approach is a gambit, the latest of many, for the interim government that is swaying between efforts to avoid angering its nationalist base in western Ukrainian while trying frantically to put in place a political strategy to tamp down tensions in eastern Ukraine, lest the Russian military find a pretext to intervene.

Ms. Tymoshenko, who met late Saturday with Mr. Turchynov and the prime minister, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, who are both members of the Fatherland party that she leads, is a savvy operative in Ukrainian politics and was a wealthy businesswoman before entering politics in the late 1990s. A spokeswoman for Ms. Tymoshenko declined to discuss her role in devising the strategy.

After the meeting, the government began asking the oligarchs to take the positions in the regional governments.

“It was a plan for stabilization,” an aide to one of the leaders, who was not authorized to discuss it publicly, said of the decision.

The ultra-wealthy industrialists wield such power in Ukraine that they form what amounts to a shadow government, with empires of steel and coal, telecoms and media, and armies of workers. Persuading some to serve as governors in the east was a small victory for the new government in Kiev.

Credit Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

“The government is doing what it can to avoid provoking any internal divisions,” Steven Pifer, a former American ambassador to Ukraine who is now at the Brookings Institution, said in a telephone interview. “They need people who have credibility in eastern Ukraine. The risk is this will be seen as business as usual by putting wealthy people in government. That has been part of the problem for the past 22 years.”

The push on the Crimean peninsula for decentralization that quickly found support from Russia’s military could easily spread to eastern Ukraine, a region deeply dependent on Russian trade and energy, and where the nationalistic words and deeds of the new government alienated many.

In another conciliatory gesture, Mr. Turchynov on Sunday vetoed a divisive law passed last week that would have eliminated Russian as an official second language: about half of Ukraine’s population speaks Russian.

What had been the country’s largest political party, the Party of Regions, led by former President Viktor F. Yanukovych, had its base in the east, but now few representatives are in the government in Kiev. The challenge is to quickly restore the foundations of political authority in the east to build up the interim government’s credibility as an inclusive leadership, willing to recognize Ukraine’s diversity, and in time to slow the centrifugal forces of an emerging pro-Russian uprising in the east.

Yuri V. Lutsenko, an opposition leader who played a prominent role in the three-month protest movement that led to the toppling of Mr. Yanukovych, told the newspaper Ukrainska Pravda that the purpose of appointing the oligarchs to run the regional governments “is to stabilize the situation in regions using not only state resources, but also private resources for the integrity of Ukraine.”

Mr. Taruta, appointed to lead the Donetsk region, is the chairman of the board of ISD Corporation, a sprawling Ukrainian steel enterprise. Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov, issued a statement on Sunday through his company, System Capital Management, signaling that he would not enter politics. Mr. Akhmetov said that he supported Ukraine’s territorial unity and would focus on running his company to improve the economy. “Our objective is to ensure the safety of people and their families and secure stable operations of companies in the country,” the statement said.

Viktor Pinchuk, Ukraine’s second wealthiest man and the son-in-law of a former president, issued a statement signaling support for the appointments but noting he had not taken one. “In such times in Ukraine big business can play a role temporarily in government,” it said, “while in usual times Ukraine’s challenge is to separate business and politics.”

Mr. Taruta issued a statement saying that he decided to serve as governor out of a “desire to protect our country where there is no difference which language you speak or which religion you believe in.”

“Everybody has a right for a new, strong Ukraine,” he added.

Mr. Kolomoysky, a steel, airline and media tycoon, accepted the position of governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region, an area on the fracture line between east and west in Ukraine. His acceptance was first reported on Sunday by 1+1, a television station that Mr. Kolomoysky owns.

Ukrainian news media reported that Vadim Novinsky, the owner of Smart Holding Company, who Forbes magazine estimated last year had a net worth of $1.9 billion, is under consideration as Kiev’s representative to Crimea, though his duties would be unclear, since the peninsula is already solidly under Russian control.

Another figure reported to be under consideration for a governorship in the east is Aleksandr Yaroslavsky, a developer and banker. The interim government offered him the position of governor of the Kharkiv region, where pro-Russian protesters on Saturday overran a regional administration building.

Russian troops pour over a border. An autocratic Russian leader blames the United States and unspecified “radicals and nationalists” for meddling. A puppet leader pledges fealty to Moscow.

It’s no wonder the crisis in Ukraine this week drew comparisons to Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 or that a chorus of pundits proclaimed the re-emergence of the Cold War.

But there’s at least one major difference between then and now: Moscow has a stock market.

Under the autocratic grip of President Vladimir Putin, Russia may be a democracy in name only, but the gyrations of the Moscow stock exchange provided a minute-by-minute referendum on his military and diplomatic actions. On Monday, the Russian stock market index, the RTSI, fell more than 12 percent, in what a Russian official called panic selling. The plunge wiped out nearly $60 billion in asset value — more than the exorbitant cost of the Sochi Olympics. The ruble plunged on currency markets, forcing the Russian central bank to raise interest rates by one and a half percentage points to defend the currency.

Mr. Putin “seems to have stopped a potential invasion of Eastern Ukraine because the RTS index slumped by 12 percent” on Monday, said Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

On Tuesday, as soon as Mr. Putin said he saw no need for further Russian military intervention, theRussian market rebounded by 6 percent. With tensions on the rise once more on Friday, the Russian market may again gyrate when it opens on Monday.

Mr. Putin seems to be “following the old Soviet playbook,” in Ukraine, Strobe Talbott, an expert on the history of the Cold War, told me this week. “But back then, there was no concern about what would happen to the Soviet stock market. If, in fact, Putin is cooling his jets and might even blink, it’s probably because of rising concern about the price Russia would have to pay.” Mr. Talbott is the president of the Brookings Institution, a former ambassador at large who oversaw the breakup of the former Soviet Union during the Clinton administration and the author of “The Russia Hand.”

Russia is far more exposed to market fluctuations than many countries, since it owns a majority stake in a number of the country’s largest companies. Gazprom, the energy concern that is Russia’s largest company by market capitalization, is majority-owned by the Russian Federation. At the same time, Gazprom’s shares are listed on the London stock exchange and are traded over the counter as American depositary receipts in the United States as well as on the Berlin and Paris exchanges. Over half of its shareholders are American, according to J. P. Morgan Securities. And the custodian bank for its depository receipts is the Bank of New York Mellon.

Many Russian companies and banks are fully integrated into the global financial system. This week, Glencore Xstrata, the mining giant based in Switzerland, was in the middle of a roughly $1 billion debt-to-equity refinancing deal with the Russian oil company Russneft. Glencore said it expected to complete the deal despite the crisis. Glencore’s revenue last year was substantially larger than the entire gross domestic product of Ukraine, which was $176 billion, according to the World Bank.

The old Soviet Union, in stark contrast, was all but impervious to foreign economic or business pressure, thanks in part to an ideological commitment to self-sufficiency. As recently as 1985, foreign trade amounted to just 4 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, and nearly all that was with the communist satellite countries of Eastern Europe. But the Soviet Union’s economic insularity and resulting economic stagnation was a major cause of the Soviet Union’s collapse. According to Mr. Talbott, the Soviet Union’s president at the time, Mikhail Gorbachev, was heavily influenced by Soviet economists and other academics who warned that by the turn of the century in 2000, the Soviet economy would be smaller than South Korea’s if it did not introduce major economic reforms and participate in the global economy.

To attract investment capital, Mr. Gorbachev created the Moscow stock exchange in 1990 and issued an order permitting Soviet citizens to own and trade stocks, bonds and other securities for the first time since the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. (Before then, Russia had a flourishing stock exchange in St. Petersburg, established by order of Peter the Great. It was housed in an elegant neoclassical building directly across the waterfront from the Winter Palace. As a symbol of wealth and capitalism, it was one of the earliest casualties of the revolution.)

Even before this week’s gyrations, the Russian stock market index had dropped near 8 percent last year, and it and the Russian economy have been suffering from low commodity prices and investor concerns about the Federal Reserve’s tapering of bond purchases — factors of little significance during the Cold War.

By contrast, today “Russia is too weak and vulnerable economically to go to war,” Mr. Aslund said. “The Kremlin’s fundamental mistake has been to ignore its economic weakness and dependence on Europe. Almost half of Russia’s exports go to Europe, and three-quarters of its total exports consist of oil and gas. The energy boom is over, and Europe can turn the tables on Russia after its prior gas supply cuts in 2006 and 2009. Europe can replace this gas with liquefied natural gas, gas from Norway and shale gas. If the European Union sanctioned Russia’s gas supply to Europe, Russia would lose $100 billion or one-fifth of its export revenues, and the Russian economy would be in rampant crisis.”

Mr. Putin may be “living in another world,” as the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, put it this week, but surely even he recognizes that the world has changed drastically since 1956 or 1968. He has no doubt been getting an earful from his wealthy oligarch friends, many of whom run Russia’s largest companies and have stashed their personal assets in places like London and New York. The oligarchs “would not dare to challenge him,” a prominent Russian economist told me. (He asked not to be named for fear of retribution.) “But they would say something like they would have to lay off workers and reduce tax payments.”

During the Cold War, there were few, if any, Russian billionaires. Today, there are 111, according to Forbes magazine’s latest rankings, and Russia ranks third in the number of billionaires, behind the United States and China. The economist noted that the billionaire Russian elite — who are pretty much synonymous with Mr. Putin’s friends and allies — are the ones who would be severely affected by visa bans, which were imposed by President Obama on Thursday. Other penalties might include asset freezes. Many Russian oligarchs have real estate and other assets in Europe and the United States, like the Central Park West penthouse the Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev bought for $88 million. “This is what may have already forced Putin to retreat,” the Russian economist said.

And while the Cold War was a global contest between Marxism and capitalism, there is today “no real ideological component to the conflict except that Putin has become the personification of rejecting the West as a model,” Mr. Talbott said. “He wants to promote a Eurasian community dominated by Moscow, but that’s not an ideology. Russia’s economy may be an example of crony capitalism, but it is capitalism. There’s not even a shadow of Marxism-Leninism now.”

What brought down the old Soviet Union and ended the Cold War “was the economic imperative to make Russia into a modern, efficient, normal state, a player in the international economy, not because of military power but because of a strong economy,” Mr. Talbott continued. But “to have a modern economy, you need the rule of law and a free press.” Mr. Putin, he said, “isn’t advancing Russia’s progress.”

The Russian economist agreed. “The pre-2008 social compact was that Putin would rule Russia while Russians would see growing incomes,” he said. “Now, the growth has stalled, and he needs ideology, coupled with propaganda and repressions. Apparently, the Soviet restoration is the only ideology he can come up with.”

Russia does have uniquely strong ties to Ukraine. “Of all the former provinces of the old Soviet Union, it’s the most painful to have lost and the one many Russians would most want to have back,” Mr. Talbott said. “The ties between Kiev and Moscow go back over 300 years. Ukraine is the heart of Russian culture.” With Russian troops entrenched in the Crimean peninsula and some Russian Ukrainians clamoring for annexation, there may be little the United States or its allies can do to restore the status quo. “Containment, in a muted and modified way, will once again be the strategy of the West and the mission of NATO,” Mr. Talbott predicted.

But not another Cold War, which is surely a good thing. “A propaganda war is completely feasible,” the Russian economist said. “The recent events were completely irrational, angering the West for no reason. This is what is most scary, especially for businesses. Instead of reforming the stagnating economy, Putin scared everybody for no reason and with no gain in sight. So it is hard to predict his next actions. But I think a real Cold War is unlikely.”

Really? Crimea belonged to Moscow for 200 years. Russia annexed it 20 years before Jefferson acquired Louisiana. Lost it in the humiliation of the 1990s. Putin got it back in about three days without firing a shot.

Now Russia looms over the rest of eastern and southern Ukraine. Putin can take that anytime he wants — if he wants. He has already destabilized the nationalist government in Kiev. Ukraine is now truncated and on the life support of U.S. and European money (much of which — cash for gas — will end up in Putin’s treasury anyway).

This must mean that seeking national power, territory, dominion — the driving impulse of nations since Thucydides — is obsolete. As if a calendar change caused a revolution in human nature that transformed the international arena from a Hobbesian struggle for power into a gentleman’s club where violations of territorial integrity just don’t happen.

“That is not 21st-century, G-8, major-nation behavior,” says Kerry. Makes invasion sound like a breach of etiquette — like using the wrong fork at a Beacon Hill dinner party.

How to figure out Obama’s foreign policy? In his first U.N. speech, he says: “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.” On what planet? Followed by the assertion that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” — like NATO? — “make no sense in an interconnected world.”

Putin’s more cynical advisers might have thought such adolescent universalism to be a ruse. But Obama coupled these amazing words with even more amazing actions.

(1) Upon coming into office, he initiated the famous “reset” to undo the “drift” in relations that had occurred during the George W. Bush years. But that drift was largely due to the freezing of relationsBush imposed after Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Obama undid that pushback and wiped the slate clean — demanding nothing in return.

(2) Canceled missile-defense agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic. Without even consulting them. A huge concession to Putin’s threats — while again asking nothing in return. And sending a message that, while Eastern Europe may think it achieved post-Cold War independence, in reality it remains in play, subject to Russian influence and interests.

(3) In 2012, Obama assured Dmitry Medvedev that he would be even more flexible with Putin on missile defense as soon as he got past the election.

(4) The Syria debacle. Obama painted himself into a corner on chemical weapons — threatening to bomb and then backing down — and allowed Putin to rescue him with a promise to get rid of Syria’s stockpiles. Obama hailed this as a great win-win, when both knew — or did Obama really not know? — that he had just conferred priceless legitimacy on Bashar al-Assad and made Russia the major regional arbiter for the first time in 40 years.

Puzzling. There is no U.S. financial emergency, no budgetary collapse. Obama declares an end to austerity — for every government department except the military.

Can Putin be faulted for believing that if he bites off Crimea and threatens Kiev, Obama’s response will be minimal and his ability to lead the Europeans even less so?

Would Putin have lunged for Ukraine if he didn’t have such a clueless adversary? No one can say for sure. But it certainly made Putin’s decision easier.

Russia will get kicked out of the G-8 — if Obama can get Angela Merkel to go along. Big deal. Putin does care about financial sanctions, but the Europeans are already divided and squabbling among themselves.

Next weekend’s Crimean referendum will ask if it should be returned to Mother Russia. Can Putin refuse? He can already see the history textbooks: Catherine the Great took Crimea, Vlad (the Great?) won it back. Not bad for a 19th-century man.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939, when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian, became part of Ukraineonly in 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or breakup. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanu­kovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymo­shenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

Peskov said the West had lost its credibility after failing to stand behind the Feb. 21 Kiev peace deal brokered by France, Germany and Poland between Viktor Yanukovych, the now-ousted Ukraine president, and the opposition.

After the agreement was signed, the Western mediators “withdrew into the shadows,” Peskov said, and the deal fell apart.

“Everything that the opposition should have fulfilled remained on paper, even though it should have been guaranteed by the ministers of three known countries,” Peskov said.

Western governments should look “soberly” at what was going on in Ukraine and “ask themselves whom it was that they had hurried to recognize as the legitimate authorities in Ukraine.”

There are profound disagreements between the United States and the European Union on one side and Russia on the other, Peskov said. But there remained hope “that some points of agreement can be found as a result of dialogue — which our partners , thank God, have not rejected.”

Peskov’s remarks followed Russian condemnation of the E.U. earlier in the day for taking an “extremely un-constructive approach” to the Ukraine crisis and its pledge to retaliate if the E.U. imposed sanctions.

“Russia does not accept the language of sanctions and threats, but if they are imposed they will not remain unanswered,” the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.

The E.U. agreed Thursday to a three-phase package of sanctions to punish Russia for its military intervention in Crimea, including an immediate halt to talks on a new political and economic pact with Moscow.

“If officials in Brussels believe that Russia needs the successful conclusion of this work more than the E.U., they are wrong,” the Russian foreign ministry said.

Alexei Miller, head of Gazprom, said Ukraine’s debt had jumped to $1.89 billion after Kiev missed a March 7 deadline to settle the bill for last month’s deliveries. “We can’t supply gas for free,” he said.

Gazprom transports most of its gas exports to Europe through pipelines crossing Ukrainian territory. Gas transit to Europe has not been interrupted during the Ukrainian crisis.

Earlier this week, Gazprom said Ukraine would lose the discount it receives on Russian gas next month unless Kiev paid the gas debts.

In Moscow’s Red Square, tens of thousands of people joined a rally and concert to support the Kremlin and Crimea’s aspirations to secede and join Russia.

Participants carrying banners saying “We Believe in Putin,” “Save Crimea from Fascists” and “Crimea is Russian Land” flocked into Red Square at the end of the working day and gathered round a stage installed on the east side of the Kremlin to listen to patriotic speeches and songs.

The event was somewhat reminiscent of Soviet-era demonstrations, with many people flagging their professional affiliations, from the Russian Union of Machine Builders to the Officers of Russia and the Council of Youth Agricultural Workers.

Organizers distributed orange and black ribbons — the colors of Saint George that commemorate the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.

For a full hour, Red Square was thick with waving Russian flags and the banners of the pro-Kremlin United Russia political party. But as the Kremlin clock struck six o’clock, most demonstrators hurried away, many leaving their banners behind.

One man, who would not give his name, saying he feared reprisals, claimed that his employers had ordered him to attend the rally. “I love my motherland and I am for Crimea so it’s all right to be here,” he said, adding that he would have been fired if he’d refused to attend.

“You should understand that not much has changed since the Soviet Union,” he said. “We don’t have gulags any more, of course, but punishments are still very tough.”

Russian president Vladimir Putin has rebuffed a warning from US president Barack Obama over Moscow's military intervention in Crimea.

After an hour-long telephone call on Thursday, Mr Putin said Moscow and Washington remain far apart on the situation in the former Soviet republic.

"Russia cannot ignore calls for help and it acts accordingly, in full compliance with international law," he said in a statement.

Mr Putin said the new authorities in Ukraine had taken "absolutely illegitimate decisions on the eastern, south-eastern and Crimea regions".

Ukraine's border guards said Moscow had poured troops into the southern peninsula where Russian forces have seized control.

There are now 30,000 Russian soldiers in Crimea, said Serhiy Astakhov, an aide to the border guards' commander.

Before the crisis there were only 11,000 soldiers based with the Russian Black Sea fleet in the port of Sevastopol, he said.

Mr Putin denies that the forces, which have no national insignia, that are surrounding Ukrainian troops in their bases are under Moscow's command, although their vehicles have Russian military plates.

The West has ridiculed his assertion.

Referendum 'illegitimate and will violate Ukraine constitution'

The most serious east-west confrontation since the end of the Cold War escalated on Thursday, when Crimea's parliament, dominated by ethnic Russians, voted to join Russia.

The region's government set a referendum for March 16.

European Union leaders and Mr Obama denounced the referendum as illegitimate, saying it would violate Ukraine's constitution.

Ukrainian prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said no-one in the civilised world would recognise the result of the "so-called referendum".

He repeated Kiev's willingness to negotiate with Russia if Moscow pulls its additional troops out of Crimea.

But the head of Russia's upper house of parliament said that Crimea had a right to self-determination and ruled out any risk of war between "the two brotherly nations".

Part of Crimea's two-million population opposes Moscow's rule, including members of the region's ethnic Russian majority.

The last time Crimeans were asked, in 1991, they voted narrowly for independence along with the rest of Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Mr Obama announced the first sanctions against Russia since the start of the crisis, ordering visa bans and asset freezes against so far unidentified people deemed responsible for threatening Ukraine's sovereignty.

Russia has earlier warned it will retaliate against any sanctions.

Japan endorsed the Western position.

But China - often a Russian ally in blocking Western moves in the UN Security Council - was more cautious and said sanctions were not the best way to solve the crisis.

Brussels and Washington rushed to strengthen the new authorities in Ukraine, announcing both political and financial assistance.

The regional director of the International Monetary Fund said talks with Kiev on a loan agreement were going well and praised the new government's openness to economic reform and transparency.

The European Commission has said Ukraine could receive nearly $17 billion in the next couple of years provided it reaches agreement with the IMF, which requires economic reforms like ending gas subsidies.

On Thursday, Crimean ministers held a vote in their regional parliament to join the Russian Federation and secede from Ukraine, and to organize a referendum on the issue for 16 March. The move comes as international tensions continue to mount over the presence of Russian troops in the peninsula, which reportedly now number 30,000.

Ukraine's interim prime minister warned the Crimean parliament that "no one in the civilised world" would recognize its referendum, calling the vote "unconstitutional" and "illegitimate". But the referendum has the support of the Russian parliament, with the speaker of the upper house sayingthat Russia would "unquestionably back" the referendum's choice.

The EU and US are mulling sanctions – so far targeting a small number of individuals with visa bans and asset freezes. This comes as a team of OSCE observers has been prevented for a second dayfrom entering Crimea by unidentified armed men.

• Geographic limitations and ambitions: Russia's capacity to reach the sea is limited by geography, so ports in the north and south seas, leading to larger waters, are crucial.

As the map below illustrates, Sevastopol is a strategically important base for Russia's naval fleet, in addition to being Russia's only warm water base. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a 1997 treaty with Ukraine allowed Russia to keep its Black Sea Fleet pretty much intact (with 15,000 personnel currently stationed) and lease the base at Sevastopol (extended to expire in 2042).

Crimea was bound to be the focus of the Russian backlash against the Ukrainian revolution. ... For more than 20 years, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, its rule by Kiev has been a major source of Russian resentment – inside and outside Crimea – and a major thorn in Ukraine's relations with Russia.

The Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation – by which Russia rents its naval base atSevastopol from the Ukrainian government – is so far-reaching in the rights it gives the Russians to exercise their military powers that it is seen by many in Ukraine to undermine the country's independence. In 2008 the Ukrainians said they would not renew the lease when it expired in 2017. But they buckled under the pressure of a gas-price hike and, in 2010, extended the Russian navy's lease until 2042.

• Projecting power: Sevastopol has been an important hub to project Russia's naval power on a global platform. The Black Sea Fleet has seen a flurry of activity since 2008: during the war with Georgia that year, the fleet staged blockades in the Black Sea. The Russian navy was actively engaged with Vietnam, Syria and Venezuela (and up until March 2011, Libya) "for logistics and repair services in their principal ports". It has also been alleged that Sevastopol has served as the main source insupplying the Assad regime during Syria's civil war and proved useful with Russia's role in dismantling Syria's chemical weapons last year. After Syria's civil war forced Russia to stop using its naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus last year, Sevastopol became even more crucial.

You can find our explainer on the issue of Ukraine's territorial integrity here, and the on the diplomatic deal that's at stake here.

• Before Tsarist subsumption: For five hundred years – roughly the middle ages in Europe – Turkic and Tatar tribes traded rule of Crimea. The peninsula spent a few hundred years as a Muslim Khanate and then an Ottoman vassal state, until Russia annexed it in 1783, under Catherine the Great, who thought the region symbolized Russia's links to antiquity. (She proceeded to parcel out land to aristocrats and build classical-style palaces and gardens.)

By 1900, the Crimean Tatars, once the majority, had been halved by wars and campaigns of Russification. Their population was halved again in 1917, and shortly after that, Stalin forcibly deported most of the remaining Tatars to central Asia. Unsurprisingly, Tatars have largely held fiercely anti-Russian sentiments for a very long time. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Tatars have been returning, and though they number upwards of 200,000, they're still a minority.

• Crimean War: With its Black Sea fleet based in Sevastopol, Tsar Nicholas I knocked the Ottoman Empire out of the region – a hugely symbolic feat considering Russia's tricky relationship with its Muslim population and its centuries in need of a fleet.

Pro-Russian Cossacks share a laugh next to a war monument in Simferopol. Photograph: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

But Nicholas' overconfidence in Crimea in part led to the Crimean war with Britain and France, whose leaders sought to stop Russia's expanding borders and to slow its influence in the Middle East. The allies won the war, bestowing British culture with the Charge of the Light Brigade, Florence Nightingale and Timothy the Tortoise. The Russians lost, but Tolstoy's Sevastopol Sketches made sure that the 11-month siege of Sevastopol stuck in the national memory. (Between Sevastopol in 1854 and Leningrad in the second world war, the notorious Russian "siege mentality" may begin to make sense.)

• Khrushchev to Yeltsin: Crimea was given to Ukraine by premier Nikita Khrushchev (himself born at the border with Ukraine) to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's inclusion in the Russian Empire, a "donation" many in Russia still see as illegitimate. Surprisingly, Boris Yeltsin, the first president of post-Soviet Russia, didn't propose an acquisition of Crimea during negotiations to dissolve the Soviet Republics.

• Let's build some boats: Peter the Great changed the course of history in countless ways, and was an extremely strange man and very serious about boats. (He supposedly said "A great leader who has an army has one hand, but he who has a navy has two." As a child, he would order around the children of other noblemen as "regiments" pretending to prepare for war. As an adult, he built a small boat by hand and used it to sail across the Neva, the river that runs through St Petersburg.) After a long trip in his youth to western Europe, in particular Amsterdam, where he studied shipbuilding, he returned to Moscow obsessed with dragging Russia into modernity – and making it a rival of the nations he saw in Europe.

Peter the Great: an odd duck

Peter saw Russia's limited access to the ocean as one of its greatest weaknesses, and though it meant tens of thousands of dead serfs to build a city on a unforgiving swamp, he had St Petersburg built on the Gulf of Finland for this very reason: he would reach the sea at every opportunity. With his new northern capital giving access to the Baltic, Peter countered the power of his arch-rival, King Charles XII of Sweden. (To give you an idea of how deep-seated the contest over Ukraine is, Peter defeated Charles' attempt to conquer Ukraine at the 1709 battle of Poltava.) To the south, Peter fought wars against the Tatars (who else) to gain access to the Black Sea, and built Russia's first naval base in Taganrog in 1698.

As brazen as Russia's invasion of Ukraine is, it is at least consistent with a philosophy Russian leaders outlined after its war with Georgia in 2008. WSJ's Neil Hickey reports on what Russia means when it talks about a "sphere of privileged interests." Photo: Associated Press.

BERLIN—Russia's threat to annex the Crimea is stoking fears in Europe that Moscow may seek to take more territory under its control and destabilize the broader region.

Describing the crisis as the most serious threat to European security since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said on Thursday in Brussels that it "presents serious implications for the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area as a whole."

Russia has occupied other foreign territory—South Ossetia and Transnistria, breakaway regions of Georgia and Moldova, respectively—for years.

What differentiates Crimea is that Russia may end up not just occupying the peninsula, but also annexing it outright after the planned referendum in the region this month. Such a move, given Crimea's strategic importance as a major Black Sea port, would set a dangerous precedent, European officials say.

"[Russian President Vladimir] Putin is a despot and a warmonger," Werner Schulz, a senior member of the Greens in the European Parliament, told German radio on Thursday. "He wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union and he's willing to use all means at his disposal."

That a leader of the pacifist Greens would resort to such combative rhetoric underscores the deep worry felt across Europe over the events in Crimea.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking on Wednesday in California, compared Russia's tactics to Hitler's in the 1930s.

She said Mr. Putin's claims of needing to protect Russian minorities in Ukraine are "reminiscent" of claims the Nazis made in the 1930s. She emphasized that she wasn't likening the Russian president to Hitler, but added, "I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before."

Her remarks received broad media coverage in Europe and seemed to confirm many Europeans' worst fears that letting Moscow have the Crimean peninsula will embolden Mr. Putin.

Europe stood by as Hitler swallowed Austria in March 1938 in the so-called Anschluss. The region's major powers then endorsed Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland, a German-speaking part of what was then Czechoslovakia that fall.

Europe's leaders believed Hitler was entitled to the region's German-speaking territories, given their common history and cultural ties. The conventional wisdom in Europe's capitals held that allowing Germany to have Austria and the Sudetenland was a price worth paying for peace. In September 1939, however, Germany invaded Poland, triggering World War II.

Though the potential for a war with Russia remains extremely remote, the lessons from Europe's appeasement of Hitler before World War II have convinced many of the region's leaders that Russia can't be allowed to keep Crimea.

There is concern that accepting the annexation of Crimea would open the door for other countries in the region to seize land they view as rightfully theirs, upsetting Europe's delicate territorial balance.

The European Union was founded to forestall the kind of regional disputes that left the Continent a battlefield for much of its history.

Though the EU has largely succeeded in fulfilling the promise of peace in recent decades, many historic disputes over territory remain unresolved. In recent years, example, tensions have flared between Hungary and its neighbors, including Romania and Slovakia, over the rights of the Hungarian minorities who live there.

Similar flashpoints can be found across the region, from the Balkans to Belgium.

A Russian annexation of Crimea would create "a free-for-all environment" in the Europe, said Kadri Liik, a senior policy fellow with the European Council on Foreign Relations in London.

"It would signify the EU's failure to spread its values, trade and governance and show that the EU is unable to defend countries that want to turn toward it," she said.

Annexation could also weaken Washington's influence in the region. The U.S. signed the so-called Budapest memorandum in 1994 along with Russia and the U.K., guaranteeing Ukraine's territorial integrity.

A failure by the U.S. to force Russia to uphold its commitments under the agreement would show the limits of U.S. power and would raise doubts about Washington's resolve to take on Moscow.

Still, many analysts believe Mr. Putin may yet be convinced to back away from the Crimea, albeit for a price. That might include new guarantees for Russia's naval base in the Crimea, further autonomy for the region or other concessions.

"If he de-escalates, he will definitely extract a price for it," Ms. Liik said. "He will demand something in return."

The crisis in Ukraine has captured global attention and is generating a wide spectrum of opinion on its causes and solutions. Newspapers, blogs and other media are publishing a variety of commentaries and editorials on what’s to be done and who’s to blame.Each day, VOA will curate a selection of these editorial opinions, highlight selections, and offer them for our readers’ consideration.The opinions expressed below are, of course, those of the authors, not the Voice of America.

Editorial by Mikheil Saakashvili, former President of Georgia, published in the

Washington Post

.

Why should the West care about what happens in Ukraine? We are seeing not just the slicing up of Europe’s largest country but also the destruction of post-Cold War order in Europe

This order was based on clear rules that not only protect small countries but also ensure stability and prosperity for the bigger ones, protect minorities and settle conflicts by peaceful mechanisms.

Think of the ramifications if borders across the continent were to revert to ethnic lines. If there are no longer any rules, a spiraling cycle of violence and destruction is inevitable.

Such an outcome could still be avoided. The U.S. sanctions announced Thursday are a good first step. They should be implemented immediately, and Europe needs to strengthen its own response.Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova should be put on fast-track accession to the European Union and granted membership action plans for NATO to demonstrate that Russia cannot seize its ends through illegal means."

Zbigniew Brezinski, former US National Security Advisor, published in the

Christian Science Monitor

.

The strategy of the West at this moment should be to complicate Vladimir Putin’s planning. He should be given options to avoid conflict. But he should also be made aware of the very negative consequences for Russia that would follow the outbreak of armed conflict.

By options, I mean that we should indicate to Russia that we prefer a peaceful accommodation in Ukraine, and NATO should invite the Russians to participate in its ongoing discussions about this crisis.

But, at the same time, we should let the Russians know we are not going to be passive.

First, we have to formally recognize the new government in Ukraine, which I believe expresses the will of the people there. It is the legitimate government. And interference in Ukrainian affairs should be considered a hostile act by a foreign power.

Further, we should put NATO contingency plans into operation, deploying forces in Central Europe so we are in a position to respond if war should break out and spread."

"Yes, we should try diplomatic and economic sanctions, escalating or de-escalating depending on how far Russia cooperates or fails to do so.

But the likelihood of these having much effect must be doubted: Russia may well believe it can ride out international opprobrium over Crimea, and on the evidence of past atrocities — Tiananmen, anyone? — it is probably right.

It can, however, be deterred from further such adventures. At a minimum, we should immediately bulk up forces in NATO member states in the region; and, as soon as possible, admit Ukraine and Georgia as members.

The trip wires must be laid out in plain sight, so that there can be no doubt as to the consequences if Russia crosses them."

Konstantin Sonin, professor at Higher School of Economics in Moscow, published in the

Moscow Times

.

As many observers have warned in recent years, the government and presidential administration have completely dismantled all feedback mechanisms from the public or other independent sources.

The actions and statements of Russian leaders indicate that they lack credible information about what is happening not only in Kiev, Donetsk and Simferopol, but also in Russia and in the world.

And, as strange as it is for the regime to issue blatant misrepresentations and exaggerations for the consumption of a savvy and well-informed foreign public, when the regime begins basing its own strategic decisions on such fallacious ideas, major blunders are inevitable.

That problem results in part from the authorities' decision to "cleanse" the media environment, thereby silencing the critics' voices. It also results from the falsification of the results of 2011 State Duma elections, resulting in a lack of representation for those Russians who do not support the military action in Ukraine.

Ukraine's interim president has signed a decree canceling a planned referendum on Crimea joining Russia, but Crimean officials vow the vote will go ahead.Interim President Oleksandr Turchynov signed the decree Friday, a day after Crimea's Moscow-backed legislature voted for the peninsula to become part of Russia and scheduled a referendum on the issue for March 16.Mr. Turchynov on Thursday called the planned referendum a "farce" and accused the Russian military of organizing the vote. He said he and the Ukrainian parliament would protect the country's integrity and sovereignty. He also said that Ukraine's parliament would initiate proceeding to dissolve the Crimean parliament.Ukraine's interim prime minister said Friday that "no one in the civilized world" will recognize the referendum's results.Arseniy Yatsenyuk told reporters he wants to "warn separatists" and others he described as "traitors of the Ukrainian state" that their decisions are "unlawful" and "unconstitutional." U.S. and European leaders have also called the referendum illegal.But Crimean officials fired back Friday, saying the vote will go forward."Kyiv will not be able to derail the referendum in the Crimea," said Mikhail Malyshev, chairman of the election commission overseeing the referendum on the peninsula. "It will be held, as scheduled, on March 16."In Moscow, meanwhile, the speaker of Russia's upper house of parliament said Friday that Russian lawmakers will support Crimea's decision if the Ukrainian region decides in a referendum to join Russia, as tens of thousands of people turned out for a rally in the Russian capital to show solidarity with Crimea's pro-Russian authorities.Ukraine and Russia have been locked in a tense standoff since Russian forces entered the Crimean peninsula a week ago.The Reuters news agency Friday quoted an official in Ukraine's border guard service as saying that Russia now has 30,000 troops in Crimea, nearly double the figure previously given by Ukrainian authorities.U.S. President Barack Obama spoke by phone Thursday with Russian President Vladimir Putin about the Ukraine crisis, but the two leaders found little common ground.The White House says Mr. Obama told Mr. Putin the presence of Russian forces in Crimea is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. The Kremlin says Mr. Putin denounced Ukraine's new government as "illegitimate" and said Russia cannot "ignore" calls for help from Ukraine's Russia-leaning east and south.Earlier Thursday, Mr. Obama authorized sanctions, including visa restrictions, against those found to have violated Ukraine's territorial integrity. The EU also took measures against Russia, suspending talks on visas and a new economic agreement.Russia's Foreign Ministry on Friday called the EU's position "extremely unconstructive," adding that Russia "will not accept the language of sanctions and threats" and promising retaliation if the EU imposes sanctions.Ukrainian Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said Friday his government is "prepared to rebuild relations with Russia." But he said Russia must withdraw its troops, fulfill its agreements with Ukraine and stop supporting separatists in Crimea.The White House says Mr. Obama, in his phone conversation with Mr. Putin, called for direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow that would be mediated by the international community. Mr. Obama called for all Russian forces to return to their bases and for international monitors to ensure the safety of Ukrainians, including ethnic Russians.On Capitol Hill, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to provide loan guarantees of $1 billion to Ukraine. That measure now goes to the U.S. Senate. The European Union is prepared to extend a $15 billion bailout to Kyiv if Ukraine can reach an agreement with the International Monetary Fund.Ukraine's crisis began when protests erupted in late November after then-President Viktor Yanukovych rejected an economic deal with the EU in favor of closer ties with Russia. What began as peaceful protests quickly turned violent, leading to the deaths of more than 80 protesters and charges that the Yanukovych government ordered snipers to shoot protesters. Mr. Yanukovych fled Ukraine last month.

KIEV/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When protest leaders in Ukraine helped oust a president widely seen as corrupt, they became heroes of the barricades. But as they take places in the country's new government, some are facing uncomfortable questions about their own values and associations, not least alleged links to neo-fascist extremists.

Russia's president Vladimir Putin claims Ukraine has fallen into the hands of far-right fascist groups, and some Western experts have also raised concerns about the influence of extremists. Yet many Ukrainians see the same groups as nationalist stalwarts and defenders of the country's independence.

Two of the groups under most scrutiny are Svoboda, whose members hold five senior roles in Ukraine's new government including the post of deputy prime minister, and Pravyi Sector (Right Sector), whose leader Dmytro Yarosh is now the country's Deputy Secretary of National Security.

Right Sector activists wearing black ski masks, bullet-proof vests and military fatigues still hold several buildings close to Kiev's Independence Square. Activists on the street declined to speak to Reuters about their organization. An individual described as their "commander" directed a reporter to two spokespeople who also declined requests for interviews.

On Tuesday the group called for supporters to patrol Wikipedia. In a posting on Vkontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook, Right Sector wrote: "We appeal to people who can make changes to Wikipedia. In the English version (with Russian worse) Right Sector is depicted as an organization that has a fascist and neo-Nazi views, with appropriate consequences. If you have an opportunity - correct this misunderstanding."

According to Wikipedia's logs, on Monday the Right Sector entry described the party as having "borderline fascist or neo-fascist views." On Tuesday the page was modified 174 times, including changes to describe Right Sector as an "organization to protect demonstrators" and a "youth patriot organization."

After the intervention of Wikipedia administrators, the page was locked and reverted to saying that Right Sector was "described by major Western newspapers as having far right or neo-fascist views."

Expert opinions on Svoboda in particular are divided. Per Anders Rudling, an associate professor at Lund University in Sweden and researcher on Ukrainian extremists, has described Svoboda as "neo-fascist". He told Britain's Channel 4 News: "Two weeks ago I could never have predicted this. A neo-fascist party like Svoboda getting the deputy prime minister position is news in its own right."

But Ivan Katchanovski, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa who has studied the far-right in Ukraine, disagreed that Svoboda was so extreme. "Svoboda is currently best described as a radical nationalist party, and not as fascist or neo-Nazi," he said. "It is now not overtly anti-Semitic."

Andrew Srulevitch, director of European Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League, an international group based in the U.S. that monitors anti-Semites and other political extremists, said: "Svoboda has been disciplined in its messaging regarding Jews since the Maidan demonstrations started in November, but they have a history of anti-Semitic statements to overcome, and a clear political program of ethnic nationalism that makes Jews nervous."

Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of Svoboda, described the row over his party as an "information war". He told Reuters: "Unfortunately, the information concerning Svoboda's radicalism is not true. It comes from European and Russian mass-media. They just wanted to create an image of horror, of extremists, anti-Semites and xenophobes, and started to write about our party some stupid things."

WARTIME ROOTS

Svoboda grew out of an organization called the Social-Nationalist Party of Ukraine (SNPU), which was founded in 1991 and had a "wolf's angel" logo that resembled a swastika. According to Svoboda's website, the party's ideology stems from Yaroslav Stetsko, a former leader of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN).

With roots among Western Ukrainian First World War veterans, the underground OUN fought for independence for that region from Poland. Then led by Stepan Bandera, the OUN welcomed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union as a means of gaining independence for the whole country. But after the OUN declared self-government in 1941, with Stetsko as prime minister, the Nazis turned on the party.

Both Stetsko and Bandera were imprisoned, including in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, but were released in 1944 to help organize sabotage against the Soviet army's advance.

Some saw - and see - the OUN's leaders as heroes who defended Ukrainian independence. But some leading historians of the Holocaust have concluded that members of the OUN assisted in the Nazis' killing of Jews as well as fighting against the Soviet army.

In 2004, the SNPU combined with other groups and was renamed Svoboda. Tyahnybok, its longtime leader, made a speech that year in western Ukraine praising a World War Two era militia which fought against Russians, Germans, Jews, and "other scum." Responding to subsequent public criticism, he said he was not anti-Semitic, but pro-Ukrainian.

POLITICAL GAINS

Since then the party has sought mainstream political power, campaigning on such issues as promoting social justice and the country's economic independence. In the 2012 election, Svoboda won nearly 10.5 percent of the vote and 37 seats in parliament.

Tyahnybok was one of the main opposition figures who negotiated with President Viktor Yanukovich before he fled the country. He met the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday and previously shared a platform with John McCain, the U.S. Senator, and Victoria Nuland, the senior American diplomat for Europe.

A U.S. official said one of the main reasons that McCain and other Americans met Tyahnybok, who does not have a position in the new Ukrainian government, was because he headed one of the three principal opposition factions leading the Ukrainian protests. The U.S. government says Svoboda is moving away from extremism and trying to become a more conventional political party.

"Since entering the Ukrainian Parliament in October 2012, the Svoboda leadership has been working to take their party in a more moderate direction and to become a modern, European mainstream political party," a senior U.S. official told Reuters.

"The leadership has been much more vigilant about expelling or otherwise punishing individual members who engage in xenophobic behavior or rhetoric."

The party retains policies of banning atheists, former communists and foreigners from being members, according to its website. Svoboda also has links to radical and far-right groups across Europe.

Tyahnybok said that his party had a "cooperation agreement" with France's far-right National Front, had "contacts with many nationalist organizations" and was interested in working with them on the issue of illegal immigration.

However, he added that there were also divisions, saying that some members of the French party had recently expressed support for Russia over Crimea. According to its website, France's National Front has condemned the "removal by force of an elected president" in Ukraine and defended Russia's intervention in the Crimea.

(Zawadzki and Grey reported from Kiev and Hosenball from Washington; Edited by Richard Woods)

Russia should join NATO: the benefits for the Global Security are enormous

To reformulate Lord Ismay's phrase: 1) Take Russia in, 2) Continue keeping Germany down, 3) Assert and exercise the US leadership position within the NATO as a unifying and directing force and vector.

"Ловец Человеков"

Connected? The halo is there. And the Book is there. And the disciples are there. But where is the Light of Understanding, in this big curved dark tunnel of a vision? Where is the big red dot? Where is the new beginning?

Russia and US Presidential Elections of 2016 - Google News

Russia international behavior - Google News

RUSSIA and THE WEST

russia ukraine - Google News

West, Russia, Putin

US - Russia relations - Google News

Hillary Clinton and rock group Pussy Riot

"Great to meet the strong & brave young women from #PussyRiot, who refuse to let their voices be silenced in #Russia. 1:09 PM - 4 Apr 2014" - Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton tweeted a picture Friday of her posing with members of the anti-Vladimir Putin punk rock group Pussy Riot. Clinton met with the women during the "Women in the World Summit" in New York. The group has emerged as chief opponents of Putin, and three members were jailed in 2012 after an anti-Putin performance at a church. The tweet has been re-tweeted almost 10,000 times.